[1050 TH] BitMinter.com [1% PPLNS,Pays TxFees +MergedMining,Stratum,GBT,vardiff]

[flound1129]

The fact remains that it would have been easier for you to stay on the pool and let the math prove you right.

You put in extra effort to avoid that. That is not reassuring.

You can give us any justification you want and it doesn't change those facts. The statement that you'll be back under a different name is not reassuring, and I'm not even one of the people who are going nuts about the situation.

Believe what you want, I'm out.

[1714151248]

1714151248

[1714151248]

1714151248

[onsightit]

So there are a couple possible scenarios that could unfold in the next few weeks if we remain on Bitminter.  The scenario where I'm quickly vindicated is much more unlikely than us having another week of bad luck or even luck (which would still keep us at 'bad luck' overall).

I think the fact that we are still having shitty luck without multipool should say something...

[Majixagi]

Wow, crazy. Some of the people here are going to attack flound1129 no matter what choice is made here. Give it a break. Multipool is leaving for the right reasons: toxicity in the users of this pool. Your ignorance of statistics is understandable, it is a tough subject for most of us, but your ignorance of common courtesy and humanity is not.

[ichtus27]

Good luck for where you are going and thanx for the speed you helpt with.
To bad for proving idiots here so finding blocks wil be harder again.

Hope you find many blocks for you pool and hope it wil be real luck also here..

greatings and hope to see you soon back anyway  

[ichtus27]

Fefox, how in the mean time is it with you, still your same speed. Still not having the power supplies that you needed.
It was the power supplies that you where waiting for wasn't it??


greatings and luck 

[Minor Miner]

Gee thanks to the morons for chasing off all that hashrate.  Lets see if we can chase off all of our biggest hashers.  That should work out great.

Please explain to me what value he created for you.   Your payout is the same (actually it is better since he never had "good luck" and I believe he never will).   It is best for him to hide in a larger pool.   He knows the "stats" would not prove him in the long run and is too arrogant to be proven wrong in public so everyone knows he screwed something up.
Very interesting.   Love how he make grand claims and demanded to know users so he could "run their performance", then when given the information, he did ......  NOTHING.    Speaks volumes.   This is not about "I do not want to be part of that pool because people are mean".   You will never meet nor know most of the people you are mining with.   This is not a social media site, we are here to make money.   
Personally, I am relieved to know we will all get our true percentage performance because I feel shorted by about 15% for the last 12 days.

And what about the rest of you foolios? Five blocks in five days? And Koi found most of them. Come on! He should be saying the same things about having to carry the weight of the rest of us right now.

This is not true.   Just because one person solved that particular block does not make the work submitted by others less valuable.   It had to be done in order for the person that solved the block to have been given that work

The pool does not seem to be unlucky or full of free riders (and yes, I believe free riders exist and were born from incompetence)   

[Blockchainhead]

There are two ways to deal with technical issues:

My wife and I argue about the sanity of spending more than we make
on an ongoing basis. It's just arithmetic, nothing to take personally, but
she does. She gets angry when the consequences come down on us, as
I predicted, claiming that I made it happen. So even when I'm right,
I am wrong. Very frustrating to argue math on an emotional basis: it
 really drains all of us. I get it.

On the other hand:

My best bud, while collaborating on a technology project, would sometimes
forget that I am the  supreme IT wizard. He would challenge my judgement
and decisions, but instead of fighting and taking it personally, we would just
bet dinner over the outcome. We were both on the same side, seeking
the "rightness" of everything without regard for who was right and who was
wrong.  Its just what we do: we want to get to the bottom of things. Nothing
personal. As an added bonus, our collective "Kung-Fu" is enhanced in the
process. We all win.

Real concerns were raised, but not addressed in a reasonble way. What if a
real wolf attacks? Are we intellectually prepared to defend our stake or
 intimidated because we need the hash to tackle the ever increasing Difficulty.
 We have learned nothing from this experience. This leaves us spintered and
vulnerable.

This little episode has made me question the integrity of my little farm.
When my equipment stats are not consistent with the pool, I get all paranoid,
but I don't challenge the good Doctor as others in the pool have. Nevertheless,
 Paranoia set in: what if the seller had installed a "customized" build of cgminer
 to siphon off some of my hash. Wire Shark city. I still haven't found the problem,
 but it gnaws at me. I'll eventually understand why, but until then I just have to
 keep on going until the truth of the matter reveals itself in an unceremonious "Oh"
 or "Doh" moment.

[jfederkins]

Thanks Koi for finding the latest block 

Now if I can only find my first block 

[Grayson5]

Doc (or someone who can confirm / correct my assumptions),

Now that I have a decent amount of miners hashing I think it might be worth activating some additional perks but I want to make sure I understand the math correctly.

I currently have automatic donations for BTC and NMC on (1.5%BTC + 1%)

and prepay BTC & NMC @ 1.5%.

Sticking with just BTC and using 0.1 as the expected amount paid per block on the account page is the following correct....?

For each block found I would receive .096 BTC's calculated as  0.1 minus 1.5% (.0015) for automatic donations minus another (.001) for the fee minus another 1.5% (.0015) for the prepay BTC.

Additionally, if I activiate the team effort perk at .50% BTC than is would cost another (.0005) BTC each block.  And the non-stop mining perk would cost .0001 BTC each block.

Is the math correct here or am I off some decimal places?

Finally, it is more cost effective to just actiive the Pro Minter perk if I am interested in most of the perks (except many the easy mode - which I confess I am not sure I understand completely).

Thanks for any help!

[georgem]

Thanks Koi for finding the latest block 

Now if I can only find my first block 

+1, finally. I already feared this would become another one of those blockless days.

[DevonMiner]

+1, finally. I already feared this would become another one of those blockless days.

YEP, difficulty attacks the rate for everyone ...

[Phedwell]

And what about the rest of you foolios? Five blocks in five days? And Koi found most of them. Come on! He should be saying the same things about having to carry the weight of the rest of us right now.

This is not true.   Just because one person solved that particular block does not make the work submitted by others less valuable.   It had to be done in order for the person that solved the block to have been given that work

The pool does not seem to be unlucky or full of free riders (and yes, I believe free riders exist and were born from incompetence)    

Now Koi has found 2/3rds of the blocks with only 1/6th of the entire pool's hash rate. Everyone here except Koi is a free loader! Period!

I will never find a block. I may be the biggest slacker there is. Should I stay and keep mining? Should I suspect my hardware? Should I do the right thing and leave? Or, even better, quit mining all together and save the electricity/planet?

I have thought a lot about it before. Maybe the work I've submitted is valuable because it allowed someone else to receive work that did find a block. This would justify everyone's existence, even Multipool's. That's the reason for pooled mining. The results may not prove it in the short term. But in the long term they would.

[Entropy-uc]

Based on a post he put on his web site I would say we will not see him back on BitMinter any time soon.

"Jun 20 3:29 AM I've made the decision to move us off bitminter due to its toxic community. I will be splitting our hash between several major pools in an attempt to smooth out our variance."

Maybe that's why he left. Here's another possibility:

"Jun 20 3:29 AM I've made the decision to move us off bitminter so that I could scam them and say it was bad luck without them ever being able to prove it."

I suspect we'll never know which is the real reason for multipool's departure.

Personally I wish that he wasn't verbally attacked by members of this forum, but I also wish that his pool pulled its weight while a part of Bitminter. Both are out of my control, so I'm not getting worked up about either.

Let's be clear.  I wasn't attacking him.  I asked if it makes sense to accept a proxy pool when there is a serious issue of bad actors cheating pool users.  A proxy pool makes for an easy cutout to hide behind if you are up to no good.  I was hoping for a discussion on the merits of that issue, which everyone has managed to ignore for 3 days.

I also point out that he was paid around 100 BTC and contributed only 25.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to freeze withdrawals on an account in that position until some investigation can be made.  Doing so as a general policy would be a reasonable failsafe against abuse of the pool. 

If flound was actually operating honestly he would know that luck always shifts.  He would have stuck around and waved that in my face and anyone else criticizing him.  The fact that he ran away makes me all the more suspicious.

Focusing on one person isn't really useful though.  The real issue here threatens the existence of public pools.  There needs to be mechanisms to either validate the integrity of pool workers or minimize the damage abusers can cause.

We are in a different boat than most folks.  We can easily move Koi to solo-mining, in fact our back pools are solo mining servers.  But I prefer to outsource the management of well connected bitcoin clients and DDOS protections for a small fee. It would be a shame it that model is destroyed because we can't find a response to this threat.

[Entropy-uc]

Gee thanks to the morons for chasing off all that hashrate.  Lets see if we can chase off all of our biggest hashers.  That should work out great.

This moron is the largest hasher on Bitminter, and solved 4 of the last 10 blocks we've had.  If the multipool issue wasn't addressed today I was going to move our gear to greener pastures.  The net impact to pool hash rate would have been the same.

So losing a miner who was in your pocket for 17% of your earnings and wasn't contributing anything shouldn't be an outcome that anyone regrets.

Of course, if you think we are too rude when somebody cheats all of us for $50k over 12 days you can ask Dr.Haribo to have use leave.

[organofcorti]

Gee thanks to the morons for chasing off all that hashrate.  Lets see if we can chase off all of our biggest hashers.  That should work out great.

This moron is the largest hasher on Bitminter, and solved 4 of the last 10 blocks we've had.  If the multipool issue wasn't addressed today I was going to move our gear to greener pastures.  The net impact to pool hash rate would have been the same.

So losing a miner who was in your pocket for 17% of your earnings and wasn't contributing anything shouldn't be an outcome that anyone regrets.

Of course, if you think we are too rude when somebody cheats all of us for $50k over 12 days you can ask Dr.Haribo to have use leave.

Sometimes the things you write I can agree with. But your last sentence there is just wrong. If you really believe that, then you believe that every miner has had similarly bad luck is a cheater. I don't think you really believe that?

[hamburgerhelper]

Based on a post he put on his web site I would say we will not see him back on BitMinter any time soon.

"Jun 20 3:29 AM I've made the decision to move us off bitminter due to its toxic community. I will be splitting our hash between several major pools in an attempt to smooth out our variance."

Maybe that's why he left. Here's another possibility:

"Jun 20 3:29 AM I've made the decision to move us off bitminter so that I could scam them and say it was bad luck without them ever being able to prove it."

I suspect we'll never know which is the real reason for multipool's departure.

Personally I wish that he wasn't verbally attacked by members of this forum, but I also wish that his pool pulled its weight while a part of Bitminter. Both are out of my control, so I'm not getting worked up about either.

Let's be clear.  I wasn't attacking him.  I asked if it makes sense to accept a proxy pool when there is a serious issue of bad actors cheating pool users.  A proxy pool makes for an easy cutout to hide behind if you are up to no good.  I was hoping for a discussion on the merits of that issue, which everyone has managed to ignore for 3 days.

I also point out that he was paid around 100 BTC and contributed only 25.  I think it is perfectly reasonable to freeze withdrawals on an account in that position until some investigation can be made.  Doing so as a general policy would be a reasonable failsafe against abuse of the pool. 

If flound was actually operating honestly he would know that luck always shifts.  He would have stuck around and waved that in my face and anyone else criticizing him.  The fact that he ran away makes me all the more suspicious.

Focusing on one person isn't really useful though.  The real issue here threatens the existence of public pools.  There needs to be mechanisms to either validate the integrity of pool workers or minimize the damage abusers can cause.

We are in a different boat than most folks.  We can easily move Koi to solo-mining, in fact our back pools are solo mining servers.  But I prefer to outsource the management of well connected bitcoin clients and DDOS protections for a small fee. It would be a shame it that model is destroyed because we can't find a response to this threat.

+1

I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.

[organofcorti]

I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.

So, anyone who experiences negative variance will be accused of being witches block withholders? I see that working well. Given recent history, about 8% of the pool would be so accused. If you keep kicking off the lowest performing 8% of the pool it wont be long until you have just one miner left.

[Entropy-uc]

I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.

So, anyone who experiences negative variance will be accused of being witches block withholders? I see that working well. Given recent history, about 8% of the pool would be so accused. If you keep kicking off the lowest performing 8% of the pool it wont be long until you have just one miner left.

Actually they were well past 95% before bailing out.

95% confidence is the level generally accepted as statistically significant in industry.  Billion dollar decisions are made off 95% confidence.

All I suggested is that his payments should be withheld until we establish what is going on.  Now he's gone.

So if you want to nitpick, I'm 95% confident he cheated all the members of this pool out of around $50k.

[organofcorti]

I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.

So, anyone who experiences negative variance will be accused of being witches block withholders? I see that working well. Given recent history, about 8% of the pool would be so accused. If you keep kicking off the lowest performing 8% of the pool it wont be long until you have just one miner left.

Actually they were well past 95% before bailing out.

I'll have to take your word for it - I don't have any more recent data.

95% confidence is the level generally accepted as statistically significant in industry.  Billion dollar decisions are made off 95% confidence.

That depends very much on the industry, and repeated measures have different measures of confidence.

All I suggested is that his payments should be withheld until we establish what is going on.  Now he's gone.

So if you want to nitpick, I'm 95% confident he cheated all the members of this pool out of around $50k.

I mentioned before that, in the days of 50 btc per block rewards, I solved one block, but did 3 blocks worth of work. On most pools I solved no blocks at all. Did I cheat those pools out of $50 000? Are you also 95% certain that the 5% of pool members that have had similarly bad luck are also cheating this pool?

[Entropy-uc]

I had proposed that Doc make per user CDF available on the Bitminer site. I don't think this is the whole answer, but I think it would be a start to building a systematic approach to the block withholding threat. The good doctor can explain why he didn't like the idea if he's so inclined.

So, anyone who experiences negative variance will be accused of being witches block withholders? I see that working well. Given recent history, about 8% of the pool would be so accused. If you keep kicking off the lowest performing 8% of the pool it wont be long until you have just one miner left.

Actually they were well past 95% before bailing out.

I'll have to take your word for it - I don't have any more recent data.

95% confidence is the level generally accepted as statistically significant in industry.  Billion dollar decisions are made off 95% confidence.

That depends very much on the industry, and repeated measures have different measures of confidence.

All I suggested is that his payments should be withheld until we establish what is going on.  Now he's gone.

So if you want to nitpick, I'm 95% confident he cheated all the members of this pool out of around $50k.

I mentioned before that, in the days of 50 btc per block rewards, I solved one block, but did 3 blocks worth of work. On most pools I solved no blocks at all. Did I cheat those pools out of $50 000? Are you also 95% certain that the 5% of pool members that have had similarly bad luck are also cheating this pool?

It would be interesting to see how many users are up 75 BTC on payouts versus blocks solved.  It most certainly won't be 5%.  I doubt it is 1 in 1000.  And anyone in that kind of extreme situation should be scrutinized.

You seem to be obsessed with having a pedantic debate on statistics.  I have absolutely no interest in that.  If you want to CONSTRUCTIVELY discuss how public pools can be defended in an environment where people are actively trying to cheat them I would be very interested in seeing what you think.